|
UIA | |
The preparation of this competition - design of the programme, and management
of the organisation - was exemplary. In addition to the specific programme
requirements, the brief contained exhaustive background information for
the non-Korean competitors in order to achieve equal conditions for all
competitors. Furthermore, the Professional adviser, an excellent specialist
in the field of contemporary museum architecture, placed the procedure under
extremely favourable conditions.
To permit the jury members to familiarise themselves with Korean culture,
they were invited, prior to the deliberations, to an extensive tour of several
days across the country, notably visiting one of the major historic sites:
Kyong-ju. We appreciated this excursion which allowed us to improve our
perception and to widen our comprehension.
With regard to the adjudication itself, the restricted number of jury members,
seven (plus two deputy members), created very favourable adjudication conditions.
Although the international competition regulations advise this restriction,
it is, unfortunately, rarely applied - the jury for the competition for
Berlin city-centre last year, was composed of 20 members! Another aspect
most favourable to the intensity and quality of the discussions was the
fact, also unusual, that, with the exception of the Director General of
the National Museum of Korea, the only representative of the promoter (the
Ministry of Culture), the jury was composed exclusively of architects, a
point which merits emphasis.
The large number of entries in international competitions represents a real
obstacle. It causes many competitors to attract attention to their project
by any means possible. There is, in fact, a latent danger that less striking
projects will be pushed into the background by deliberately flashy proposals
and be neglected by the jury. One of the best ways of countering this problem
is to allow a sufficiently long period for the adjudication. This was the
case for the Seoul competition, for which the jury had five full days for
each of the two phases.
In launching this open competition, the organisers sought to make of the
National Museum of Korea a prestigious building, capable of featuring amongst
the major international institutions, and thus to motivate the best architectural
talent in the world.
Finally it was a Korean team which won and some of those in charge of the
organisation feared that the authorities and the public might query the
usefulness of the international consultation. The widely shared conclusion,
which to my mind is imperative, is rather that the result proves the competitivness
of the Korean architects on the international scene.
The object of the exercise was to obtain the highest international standard
but also to reflect the culture of the country and the genius loci of the
site. I believe that the winning project combines these requirements and
synthesises the aims.
Henceforth, the wager is in the realisation itself, through the implementation
process and construction of the building. It depends both on the talent
of the architects but also on the goodwill of the authorities. I got the
impression that one can count on both.
Wilhelm Kücker
President of the jury